Socrates ' Life Of The Soul, And Critical Thinking

“A person’s a person, no matter how small” (136). The ethics of abortion has been argued emotionally for many years. In The Unaborted Socrates (Inter Varsity Press: Downers Grove, IL, 1983), Peter Kreeft approaches this important debate using fictional characters and a logic based argument. Socrates, the great ethical philosopher who lived in Athens, Greece in about 400 BC, returns in the present day (then 1983) to challenge the pro-Choice position of an abortion doctor, an ethicist and a psychologist. The result is a thoroughly logical and entertaining exposure of flaws in the pro-choice platform. The author organizes the debate of this serious moral issue -- is abortion murder -- by engaging Socrates in three dialogs. In each dialog Socrates questions a pro-choice representative about his beliefs. In each case, Socrates shows his opponent the fallacy of his position using the opponent's own words. Socrates mission is to “follow the common master” (20), using rational thought to follow the argument wherever it leads. The Unaborted Socrates draws the reader into questioning thoughts of all human beings having the right to live, the harm and evil of liberal abortion laws, and being pro-choice or pro-force.

Through several dialogues Plato gives readers accounts of Socrates’ interactions with other Athenians. While some may think of him as a teacher of sorts, Socrates is adamant in rejecting any such claim (Plato, Apology 33a-b). He insists that he is not a teacher because he is not transferring any knowledge from himself to others, but rather assisting those he interacts with in reaching the truth. This assistance is the reason Socrates walks around Athens, engaging in conversation with anyone that he can convince to converse with him. An assertion he makes at his trial in Plato’s Apology is at the center of what drives Socrates in his abnormal ways, “the unexamined life is not worth living for a human being” (38a). Socrates, through aporia, looks to lead an examined life to perfect his soul and live as the best person he can be. This paper looks to examine the ‘unexamined life’ and the implications rooted in living a life like Socrates’.

Socrates put one’s quest for wisdom and the instruction of others above everything else in life. A simple man both in the way he talked and the wealth he owned, he believed that simplicity in whatever one did was the best way of acquiring knowledge and passing it unto others. He is famous for saying that “the unexplained life is not worth living.” He endeavored therefore to break down the arguments of those who talked with a flowery language and boasted of being experts in given subjects (Rhees 30). His aim was to show that the person making a claim on wisdom and knowledge was in fact a confused one whose clarity about a given subject was far from what they claimed. Socrates, in all his simplicity never advanced any theories of his own

As the wisest man in all of ancient Greece, Socrates believed that the purpose of life was both personal and spiritual growth. He establishes this conviction in what is arguably his most renowned statement: "The unexamined life is not worth living."

The problem with Socrates concerns the problem with the role of value and reason. Nietzsche believes that the bulk of philosophers claim that life is a corrupt grievance for mankind. Nietzsche reasoned that these life deniers were decadents of Hellenism, as a symptom of some underlying melancholy. For someone to paint life in such a negative light they must have suffered a great deal through the course of their own life. Furthermore, these no-sayers agreed in various physiological ways and thus adopted the same pessimistic attitudes towards life. Socrates was ugly, alike decadent criminals and by ways of these similarities was decadent as well. Nietzsche also claims ugliness as a physiological symptom of life in its decline supported by studies in phenology.

In The Republic Book IV, pp. 130e-136d, Socrates sets out to prove that societal justice is analogous to individual justice. In order to substantiate the analogy, Socrates compares the individual and the city. As he previously defined, justice in the city involves the power relationships between the different parts of the city, namely the guardians, the auxiliaries, and the producers.

There are times in every mans life where our actions and beliefs collide—these collisions are known as contradictions. There are endless instances in which we are so determined to make a point that we resort to using absurd overstatements, demeaning language, and false accusations in our arguments. This tendency to contradict ourselves often questions our character and morals. Similarly, in The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology), Meletus’ fallacies in reason and his eventual mistake of contradicting himself will clear the accusations placed on Socrates. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth with the idea of not believing in the Gods but of teaching the youth to think for

therefore, should comply with the laws of the state. Speaking for the laws, Socrates says the proof of his love for the state lies in the facts that he raised his children there, never left the city, did not show interest in visiting any other city states, and most importantly, shunned the idea of exile in exchange for his life during his trial, saying he would rather die than leave Athens. By these arguments, Socrates shows that from the state’s POV, he is a loyal citizen who has chosen to live under its rules and to disobey the rules which have been accepted and instilled in him since birth, would be changing his own belief system, to benefit him in a time of need.

Socrates begins by discussing why his previous accusers accused him of what he did. “I will try to show you what has caused this reputation and slander...is none other than a certain kind of wisdom” (20d, 23a). His next point on human wisdom, is that it is not very valuable; “That one of you, O human beings, is wisest who, like Socrates, has become cognizant that in truth he is worth nothing with respect to wisdom” (23b). Socrates still believes however, that thinking about and examining wisdom is extremely important to live a fulfilling life.

In order to do this, he goes about Athens questioning those he believes to be wiser than him, including politicians, poets, and craftsmen. Upon this questioning, he discovers that even those perceived as the wisest actually know far less than one would expect. Even the craftsmen, who have much practical wisdom in their respective fields, see their success as merely a tribute to their vast knowledge of many subjects. This, Socrates claims, is not true wisdom. Human wisdom can be described as the acknowledgement and acceptance that one does not know everything, nor is one capable of knowing everything. This, however, does not mean that people should sit idly by, never pursuing wisdom, for it is still vital to the attainment of a good life, which should be the ultimate goal of mankind.

Socrates spent his time questioning people about things like virtue, justice, piety and truth. The people Socrates questioned are the people that condemned him to death. Socrates was sentenced to death because people did not like him and they wanted to shut him up for good. There was not any real evidence against Socrates to prove the accusations against him. Socrates was condemned for three major reasons: he told important people exactly what he thought of them, he questioned ideas that had long been the norm, the youth copied his style of questioning for fun, making Athenians think Socrates was teaching the youth to be rebellious. But these reasons were not the charges against him, he was charged with being an atheist and

Socrates lived most of his life constantly examining his own ideas and character. He saw such self-examination, whether conducted by himself or conversation with partners, to be the greatest good of a life worth living. Socrates' focus was to determine how to become a better human being. In this Socratic perspective, the quality and persistence of the attention we pay to living an examined life is at the heart of living well. Examining anything will result in understanding it. As for that Socrates quote "The unexamined life is not worth living". To me, that means to understand what you are living for is more important than actually living. Understanding yourself, your choices, and why you make those choices; Understanding others that influence you or are influenced by you. Truly understanding what you're doing in your lives endeavors are all things that would make your life "examined". Living an unexamined life would consist of never asking questions to help obtain knowledge to be intelligent instead of being completely ignorant to the world around you. However in this current society, knowledge seeking students are fed ideas and frameworks of interpretations, and attitudes about life and subjects

Socrates found his purpose through oracles and dreams by a divine power, “…since I was trying to find out the meaning of the oracle, I was bound to interview everyone who had a reputation for knowledge.” (Apology 22a), from the oracle of Apollo, Socrates believed that his purpose was to philosophize. Socrates would question reputable wise men and try to prove the oracle that he (Socrates) was not the wisest man. After interviewing men with a high reputation, Socrates began to expose them for their ignorance and their deficiency. He also determined that his wisdom was of no value, yet he was the wisest mortal. He also established that there are three levels of wisdom; “real wisdom” (the highest), being “wisest among men” (the middle), “not being wise, but seeming wise, especially to oneself” (the lowest). Even after establishing his purpose and proving the oracle, he felt as if he should still philosophize (Mission from God, pg. 20). Along with morality, Socrates had the belief that our purpose in life was to examine how to live, he thought that we must come

In Phaedo Socrates claims that the soul exists somewhere after the body dies. He uses the argument of opposites to make his claim. Socrates believes that for something to “be” it must have been something else before or come from something. He gives Cebes examples of thing that are generated as a result from its opposite. “when anything becomes greater it must inevitably have been smaller and then have become greater.” He uses this example to say that being “greater” is derived from having been “smaller” at some point; and that in between being “greater” and “smaller” there are a lot of variables. After giving several examples to Cebes and Cebes agreeing to most outcomes, Socrates asks Cebes if there is an opposite to living, Cebes responds

Socrates’ views of death as represented in “The Trial and Death of Socrates” are irrevocably tied to his beliefs of what makes life significant. For Socrates, life must be examined through constant questioning and one must hold the goodness of life above all else. Consequently, even in the face of the un-good, or unjust in Socrates’ case as represented in his trial, it would not be correct to do wrong, return wrong or do harm in return for harm done. Therefore, no act should be performed with an account for the risk of life or death; it should be performed solely on the basis of whether it is good and right.